United States is diverse. Everyone knows that as a diverse nation, it houses extremes of thought and action. A largely capitalist country, the US has over the course of more than the second half its history trended away from its laissez-faire origin and toward a creeping socialism with all those entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and possibly coming soon to a bottomless entitlement pit near you, college-loan forgiveness. Did I miss anything? Welfare payments? Let me research for a moment…
Eighty entitlement programs! 80! This is not your great-grandmother’s America of hardscrabble life lived in the soot and dust of history. This is $31 trillion-in-debt-America. You name it; we’ve bought it, and if the expenditure was made by a government agency, chances are that the cost was more than double market value. Our capitalist background also provided the rest of the world with aid and gifts from our considerable largesse. Thank you, General Marshall and all subsequent American givers, including, if you pay taxes, YOU. The hopeless have faith in your charity.
Capitalistic Socialists or Socialistic Capitalists?
In the midst of all this socialism, many Americans still cherish the capitalist lifestyle, including some politicians who preach socialism while capitalizing on the capitalism. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC) come to mind. Bernie out there selling his latest “bash capitalism” book and selling tickets to the duped who want to hear him avoid defining “democratic socialism.” Ah! Bernie. Reminds me of the words to “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits. Capitalize on capitalism by condemning it; that’s the gig. If he were a younger man, no doubt the chicks…
And speaking about…
That young NY Congresswoman (may we call her that? “Congresshuman?) wore a $30,000 dress with something about taxing the rich emblazoned on it. Her makeup was expensive, also. How cute! What a wonderful example of socialists in action. And she recently boasted about her keeping thousands of jobs out of her district. Is there no end to the hubris and folly? No end to elites fawning over themselves in front of sycophants who pay to see them play?
So, now there’s some question about Ocasio-Cortez’s renting that dress, having a $500 limo, and putting on expensive makeup for that gala. I believe it might be a small matter of not paying the bill or of receiving gifts in contradiction to the rules of her political office. Probably is a small matter, but it puts into the limelight the hypocrisy of those who reap the benefits of capitalism while decrying its evils. Think the ordinary Russian citizen went dressed so during the Soviet Union days? Heck, think the people in this country got to go to an expensive gala dressed so—with free tickets? And the limo?
American Idols
Yet, Bernie and AOC have their followers, adoring fans who listen and pretend that what they say makes sense. Eliminate thousands of potential jobs in your district as AOC brags she did? No problem; the constituents will pull the lever on Election Day.
Here’s Bernie: “We are rapidly moving toward a nation of the super-rich, by the super-rich and for the super-rich.” So, I looked up Bernie’s net worth: Three million bucks in the report I saw online. Duh! Not Jeff Bezos, but pretty comfortable, I’d say, especially since he has three homes, one purchased for over $600,000. But let’s not forget the dedication of the democratic socialist: Sanders appeared in a cameo role in the 1988 comedy-drama film Sweet Hearts Dance, playing a man who distributes candy to young trick-or-treaters. Appropriate, right? He is, supposedly, dedicated to redistribution, a process that involves free stuff, fictional candy or real tax revenue. By the way, in one report on the source of his wealth, the article says it comes from “politics.” I assume that his money-making books can be attributed to the fame associated with his political candidacies and offices. Three million bucks. That’s the kind of socialism many of us would like. Hey, Bernie, I was thinking of buying the lakeside home next to yours; think you can spare some money? No? No redistribution for you!
But lest you think I am envious, I’ll tell you outright that I am not. I hope Bernie can make as much money as he wants to make, and I hope he gets to keep it until “he can’t take it with him.” More power to those who earn, even to those who made their money by virtue of elections. Just, please, don’t preach to me about the glories of a political system under which more than 160 million people lost their lives in the last century. Don’t tell me that socialism will be different under your aegis.
Why the Following?
If socialist country after socialist country fails to provide “as advertised,” how is it that so many young people say they favor socialism?
Are educators to blame for the blinders that socialist sycophants wear? Probably a little. Apparently teachers, who are often underpaid for the tasks they do, lean toward increasing entitlement programs and the endless taxes that fund their jobs. That’s somewhat understandable given their salaries (I exclude professors because Senator Warren made more than $400,000 for two years’ work at Harvard). I suppose the value of teaching, even Warren’s, is difficult to assess because teachers produce no tangible product, no gizmo. Their contribution to society is qualitative, not quantitative. Given that every class they teach is an entity in itself with diverse talents and intelligence, teachers, even the best of them, are limited in what they can prove about their jobs. Even “bright students” can fail, become addicts, become criminals, or grow into grifting politicians. Merit based on student performance is highly subjective even under the circumstances of standardized tests. Who can measure the teacher’s efforts when the child is uncooperative or belligerent.
[ASIDE: As a young teacher I encountered an uncooperative and belligerent junior high student whom I tried “to reach.” When nothing seemed to work, I asked him to write a paragraph on what he would do if he won a million dollars. He said he would buy a used Chevy. I asked what he would do with the rest of the money. He said, “Use it for repairs.”]
Good Intentions, Bad Results
Whatever the source of affinity for socialism, be it educational system or media propaganda, those who ascribe to its principles—even when they can’t define them—seem to have little historical knowledge of socialism. They probably lack awareness of current socialist governments, also.
Bernie spent time at the University of Chicago, a school known for its Left-leaning faculty—going back to before the McCarthy era. His motives seem noble. He has stood up for the little guy. But latching onto socialism as a solution doesn’t favor the little guy as more than a century of socialist experiments have shown. Little guys stay little under socialism. The system almost certainly guarantees that a few big guys will dominate; an oligarchy will form; the elites of the system will seek to consolidate their power through propaganda and censorship on the one hand and through imprisonment and democide on the other hand. Democide, killing of the people. Stalin is infamous for it.
But Bernie and his protege will argue that his form of socialism is different, is more humane. This time it will work.
It won’t, sorry to say. It will suppress the rise of many individuals in favor of a few. It was only a gala, only an elite ball to which AOC went dressed in a dress that cost more than the little guy makes in a year. She thought it was a clever idea. But then, the nature of the socialist elite is to proclaim equity but not practice it. Would AOC have been happy in Mao’s China? Would she be happy in a public fashion that was uniform? Would she be happy with less than her fame and position have afforded her under capitalism?
Is It All about Security through Pattern-making?
One last comment by way of introducing a future blog. We are creatures that love patterns. Some patterns we discover; others, we impose. The arrangement of molecules in a substance is an example of a discovered pattern. The arrangement of stars in a constellation is an example of an imposed pattern. In actuality, there is no Ursa Major, no Orion.
Socialism is an imposed pattern. Like constellations that group unrelated stars (Gemini, for example: “The Twins” Castor and Pollux, are two stars 33 and 51 light years away), the goal of socialism is to fit everyone into a pattern “for the sake of equity.” Such an imposition ignores the true and often chaotic relationships among individuals. We force in our minds a connection between Castor and Pollux, a connection that doesn’t exist. In socialism we force into a pattern individuals who don’t belong to a pattern. We relate what isn’t related.
The forcing might be a deep seated psychological need to have our world make sense. Internally insecure, we make the world around us “make sense” by putting its diverse pieces into a recognizable and stable pattern. The consequence of imposing patterns is that they govern the individual “units” (stars and people), and make them “fit” regardless of their obvious differences. Given the eventual and predictable rise of an oligarchy and dictator, socialism’s consequences are devastating to the individuals in the system. They are required to fit the pattern.
I don’t care if AOC went to a gala outfitted in a $30,000 dress. I do care that she got the dress through a “special favor” not afforded to those she says she represents. I do care that she wears it as part of an oligarchy’s message to force us all into a pattern of equity while she enjoys the freedom that capitalism affords.
I’m not happy being forced into a pattern. Are you?
Eighty entitlement programs! 80! This is not your great-grandmother’s America of hardscrabble life lived in the soot and dust of history. This is $31 trillion-in-debt-America. You name it; we’ve bought it, and if the expenditure was made by a government agency, chances are that the cost was more than double market value. Our capitalist background also provided the rest of the world with aid and gifts from our considerable largesse. Thank you, General Marshall and all subsequent American givers, including, if you pay taxes, YOU. The hopeless have faith in your charity.
Capitalistic Socialists or Socialistic Capitalists?
In the midst of all this socialism, many Americans still cherish the capitalist lifestyle, including some politicians who preach socialism while capitalizing on the capitalism. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC) come to mind. Bernie out there selling his latest “bash capitalism” book and selling tickets to the duped who want to hear him avoid defining “democratic socialism.” Ah! Bernie. Reminds me of the words to “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits. Capitalize on capitalism by condemning it; that’s the gig. If he were a younger man, no doubt the chicks…
And speaking about…
That young NY Congresswoman (may we call her that? “Congresshuman?) wore a $30,000 dress with something about taxing the rich emblazoned on it. Her makeup was expensive, also. How cute! What a wonderful example of socialists in action. And she recently boasted about her keeping thousands of jobs out of her district. Is there no end to the hubris and folly? No end to elites fawning over themselves in front of sycophants who pay to see them play?
So, now there’s some question about Ocasio-Cortez’s renting that dress, having a $500 limo, and putting on expensive makeup for that gala. I believe it might be a small matter of not paying the bill or of receiving gifts in contradiction to the rules of her political office. Probably is a small matter, but it puts into the limelight the hypocrisy of those who reap the benefits of capitalism while decrying its evils. Think the ordinary Russian citizen went dressed so during the Soviet Union days? Heck, think the people in this country got to go to an expensive gala dressed so—with free tickets? And the limo?
American Idols
Yet, Bernie and AOC have their followers, adoring fans who listen and pretend that what they say makes sense. Eliminate thousands of potential jobs in your district as AOC brags she did? No problem; the constituents will pull the lever on Election Day.
Here’s Bernie: “We are rapidly moving toward a nation of the super-rich, by the super-rich and for the super-rich.” So, I looked up Bernie’s net worth: Three million bucks in the report I saw online. Duh! Not Jeff Bezos, but pretty comfortable, I’d say, especially since he has three homes, one purchased for over $600,000. But let’s not forget the dedication of the democratic socialist: Sanders appeared in a cameo role in the 1988 comedy-drama film Sweet Hearts Dance, playing a man who distributes candy to young trick-or-treaters. Appropriate, right? He is, supposedly, dedicated to redistribution, a process that involves free stuff, fictional candy or real tax revenue. By the way, in one report on the source of his wealth, the article says it comes from “politics.” I assume that his money-making books can be attributed to the fame associated with his political candidacies and offices. Three million bucks. That’s the kind of socialism many of us would like. Hey, Bernie, I was thinking of buying the lakeside home next to yours; think you can spare some money? No? No redistribution for you!
But lest you think I am envious, I’ll tell you outright that I am not. I hope Bernie can make as much money as he wants to make, and I hope he gets to keep it until “he can’t take it with him.” More power to those who earn, even to those who made their money by virtue of elections. Just, please, don’t preach to me about the glories of a political system under which more than 160 million people lost their lives in the last century. Don’t tell me that socialism will be different under your aegis.
Why the Following?
If socialist country after socialist country fails to provide “as advertised,” how is it that so many young people say they favor socialism?
Are educators to blame for the blinders that socialist sycophants wear? Probably a little. Apparently teachers, who are often underpaid for the tasks they do, lean toward increasing entitlement programs and the endless taxes that fund their jobs. That’s somewhat understandable given their salaries (I exclude professors because Senator Warren made more than $400,000 for two years’ work at Harvard). I suppose the value of teaching, even Warren’s, is difficult to assess because teachers produce no tangible product, no gizmo. Their contribution to society is qualitative, not quantitative. Given that every class they teach is an entity in itself with diverse talents and intelligence, teachers, even the best of them, are limited in what they can prove about their jobs. Even “bright students” can fail, become addicts, become criminals, or grow into grifting politicians. Merit based on student performance is highly subjective even under the circumstances of standardized tests. Who can measure the teacher’s efforts when the child is uncooperative or belligerent.
[ASIDE: As a young teacher I encountered an uncooperative and belligerent junior high student whom I tried “to reach.” When nothing seemed to work, I asked him to write a paragraph on what he would do if he won a million dollars. He said he would buy a used Chevy. I asked what he would do with the rest of the money. He said, “Use it for repairs.”]
Good Intentions, Bad Results
Whatever the source of affinity for socialism, be it educational system or media propaganda, those who ascribe to its principles—even when they can’t define them—seem to have little historical knowledge of socialism. They probably lack awareness of current socialist governments, also.
Bernie spent time at the University of Chicago, a school known for its Left-leaning faculty—going back to before the McCarthy era. His motives seem noble. He has stood up for the little guy. But latching onto socialism as a solution doesn’t favor the little guy as more than a century of socialist experiments have shown. Little guys stay little under socialism. The system almost certainly guarantees that a few big guys will dominate; an oligarchy will form; the elites of the system will seek to consolidate their power through propaganda and censorship on the one hand and through imprisonment and democide on the other hand. Democide, killing of the people. Stalin is infamous for it.
But Bernie and his protege will argue that his form of socialism is different, is more humane. This time it will work.
It won’t, sorry to say. It will suppress the rise of many individuals in favor of a few. It was only a gala, only an elite ball to which AOC went dressed in a dress that cost more than the little guy makes in a year. She thought it was a clever idea. But then, the nature of the socialist elite is to proclaim equity but not practice it. Would AOC have been happy in Mao’s China? Would she be happy in a public fashion that was uniform? Would she be happy with less than her fame and position have afforded her under capitalism?
Is It All about Security through Pattern-making?
One last comment by way of introducing a future blog. We are creatures that love patterns. Some patterns we discover; others, we impose. The arrangement of molecules in a substance is an example of a discovered pattern. The arrangement of stars in a constellation is an example of an imposed pattern. In actuality, there is no Ursa Major, no Orion.
Socialism is an imposed pattern. Like constellations that group unrelated stars (Gemini, for example: “The Twins” Castor and Pollux, are two stars 33 and 51 light years away), the goal of socialism is to fit everyone into a pattern “for the sake of equity.” Such an imposition ignores the true and often chaotic relationships among individuals. We force in our minds a connection between Castor and Pollux, a connection that doesn’t exist. In socialism we force into a pattern individuals who don’t belong to a pattern. We relate what isn’t related.
The forcing might be a deep seated psychological need to have our world make sense. Internally insecure, we make the world around us “make sense” by putting its diverse pieces into a recognizable and stable pattern. The consequence of imposing patterns is that they govern the individual “units” (stars and people), and make them “fit” regardless of their obvious differences. Given the eventual and predictable rise of an oligarchy and dictator, socialism’s consequences are devastating to the individuals in the system. They are required to fit the pattern.
I don’t care if AOC went to a gala outfitted in a $30,000 dress. I do care that she got the dress through a “special favor” not afforded to those she says she represents. I do care that she wears it as part of an oligarchy’s message to force us all into a pattern of equity while she enjoys the freedom that capitalism affords.
I’m not happy being forced into a pattern. Are you?
RSS Feed